SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Complaint,                                                                                               

v.

GEORGETOWN IRONWORKS INC.,

Respondent.                                                                                   

OSHRC Docket No. 92-0080

DIRECTION FOR REVIEW AND ORDER

The Complainant filed a Motion to Remand Case for Reconsideration in Light of New Information on June 8, 1992. That Motion, which Complainant represents is filed on behalf of both parties, asserts that the Respondent has demonstrated, to the Complainant's satisfaction, that it had no employees or role at the cited construction worksite. Based on that demonstration, the Complainant has informed the Commission that it seeks to withdraw the citation upon which its complaint is based.

On May 22, 1992, Chief Administrative Law Judge Irving Sommer issued an Order Dismissing the Respondent's Notice of Contest. That Order, affirming the Secretary's citation and proposed penalties in ail respects, was docketed with the Commission on May 28, 1992 Judge Sommer's Order was based on the Respondent's failure to answer an earlier Order to Show Cause why the Respondent's Notice of Contest should not be dismissed.

Under the aforementioned circumstances, the Commission will interpret the Complainant's Motion of June 8, 1992 as a Petition for Discretionary Review and a Motion to Withdraw Citation. Based on our review of the record in this matter, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 661(j) and Commission Rule 92(a), 29 C.F.R. § 2200.92(a), the aforementioned Order Dismissing Notice of Contest is directed for review. Further, finding that under Commission Rule 102, 29 C.F.R. § 2200.102, the Complainant may withdraw the citation at any stage of a proceeding, pursuant to that rule, the Complainant's Motion to Withdraw Citation is granted.

Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,                                                                                                                      Chairman

Donald G. Wiseman,                                                                                                               Commissioner

Velma Montoya,                                                                                                                       Commissioner

Dated: June 18, 1992

SECRETARY OF LABOR,  

Complainant,                                                                                              

v.

GEORGETOWN IRONWORKS,INC.

Respondent,

Docket NO. 92-0080                                                              

ORDER

On March 24, 1992, the undersigned issued an ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE to the Respondent as to why his Notice of Contest should not be dismissed for failure to file an answer to the complaint as required by the Commission Rules of Procedure. The Respondent failed to reply to the ORDER. His actions demonstrate either that he has abandoned the case or treats the Rules of Procedure of the Commission with disdain. This cannot be countenanced as it seriously impedes the administration of justice.

Accordingly, the Notice of Contest filed by the Respondent is dismissed. The Secretary's citation(s) and proposed penalties are AFFIRMED in all respects.

IRVING SOMMER
Judge

DATED: MAY 22,1992
Washington, D.C.

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Complaint,

v.

Georgetown Ironworks, Inc.,

Respondent.

DOCKET NO. 92-0080

REGION 1

MOTION TO REMAND CASE FOR RECONSIDERATION
IN LIGHT OF NEW INFORMATION

On behalf of both parties, Complainant hereby moves the Review Commission to remand this case to the Administrative Law Judge for reconsideration.  Because Respondent has demonstrated that it had no employees or role at the cited construction worksite, Complainant seeks to withdraw the Complaint herein and the citation on which it is based.   Note that another employer at the cited construction worksite has accepted responsibility for the same citation items arising out of identical violations; those citation items were not contested and have become a final order under the OSH Act.

While Complainant does not condone this pro se Respondent's continued failure to file an Answer to the Complaint, the purposes of the OSH Act would be ill served by entry of a final order against the wrong employer.

Dated______________

Marshall J. Breger
Solicitor of Labor                                                                                                                                                             Albert H. Ross
Regional Solicitor                                                    

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Constance B. Franklin
Attorney

U.S. Department of Labor
Attonreys for Complainant